Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eequor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 01:31, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 05:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Note to readers This RfC failed to meet the requirement for certification within the 48 hour deadline, but was not deleted in order that it may be used for reference in resolving certain disputes with the submitter. Please do not modify this page or endorse sections here. You are free to add comments to the talk page.

---

• (Eequor | talk | contributions)

---

Contents 1 Statement of the dispute 1.1 Description 1.2 Evidence of disputed behavior 1.3 Applicable policies 1.4 Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute 1.5 Users certifying the basis for this dispute 1.6 Other users who endorse this summary 2 Response 3 Outside view 4 Discussion

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.

[edit] Description

User is reverting a series of pages related to Sol Invictus (disambiguation) some of them entirely "on principle" as declared in the edit summary, and misrepresenting other reverts by claiming she is removing vandalism, or simply not declaring them at all.CheeseDreams 01:31, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

1. [1]

1. [2]

1. [3]

1. [4]

1. [5]

1. [6]

1. [7]

1. [8]

1. [9]

1. [10]

1. [11]

1. [12]

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. Wikipedia:Writers rules of engagement (failing to declare accurate edit summary)
2. Wikipedia:Civility (unjustified accusation of vandalism, and calling for a ban)
3. Wikipedia:Editing policy (reverting an edit "on principle" rather than reviewing the change)

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. [13]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

1. CheeseDreams 11:54, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

1. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 05:07, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

I'm sorry, and I certainly invite correction if I'm mistaken, but it does not appear this was discussed on her user page until after her reversions at which point she stopped. Thus, it cannot be said that attempts to resolve the problem with Eequor have failed. In fact, there does not appear to be talk page comment on any of the involved pages until User:Sam Spade chastized CheeseDreams for the edit war (Talk:Mithraism#edit war). Other parties seem to have reverted the articles since then, indicating Eequor's actions were at the least well-supported. Unless provided evidence otherwise, I view this RfC as frivolous.

Incidentally, a cursory look at this user's page—or for that matter her signature—suggests she is female. Cool Hand Luke 07:12, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 09:37, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. [[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 20:15, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The talk page comment is actually on Talk:Labarum, which was originally an involved page, if it is not now. CheeseDreams 08:53, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC) There is also a comment on Eequor's talk pageCheeseDreams 08:53, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC) Sam Spade has already previously declared his enmity for me, so I fail to see how him "chastizing" me is a neutral opinion, especially since it is Sam Spade. CheeseDreams 08:53, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're refering to a comment you made to Talk:Labarum on November 9, almost three weeks before Eequor touched the page? I'm not citing Sam Spade or anyone else as an impartial source. I'm merely asserting (as I thought I made clear), that attempts to resolve this issue have not been made with the user, and it doesn't appear to be an ongoing problem anyway. A batch of one-time edits you disagree with does not merit an RfC. Cool Hand Luke

No, Im referring to a discussion with Wetman on the day of the change. Though it is true that there was also the said comment on such a date as well. CheeseDreams 23:09, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The reason I put in the RfC was because of the

• (self declared) "reversion on principle" of a few articles, which resulted in removing additional material, causing double redirects, and removing links to disambiguation pages.
• In addition, I object to the false characterisation of disambiguating an article (and all the pages that were at "what links here") as "vandalism".
• Further, I resent the immediacy of the reverting of said disambiguation, which I myself consider unwarrented vandalism.
• At no point did I even get a question on my talk page about the issue.

This I regard as grounds for "referral for comment". CheeseDreams 23:13, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.